I agree with what you say. When we don't pay, then there isn't a huge incentive, but you know how it is. People on Slashdot keep yammering about what a great deal it is to open up the source [e.g. "Think of all the development costs that you'll save!!1!"], and how everybody should use it [e.g. "Think of all the purchase costs that you'll save!!1!"].

Like I said, I agree, but it's not appropriate to tell people that they should use it, or that open source is better, and then say that programmers don't care.

So, you say that you don't represent all programmers, which makes sense, but that wasn't the impression that I got. Then again, maybe I'm being too pedantic [or whatever]. Then again, this is Slashdot, and we can never know what is meant until it is spelled out.

I see that you have a 7 digit user number. Maybe you are new here; I don't know. I can say for sure, though, that many GPL advocates certainly did think that they were doing the world a favour by using open source software.

You would give a hoot, because you are speaking on behalf of all programmers, it seems. I think that Richard wants everybody to use free software. If that is true, then programmers are going to have to be more accommodating.

The guy that I was responding to insisted on perpetual debt. If you want to spend borrowed money on a fantastic opportunity that is time limited, then go for it. However maintaining a perpetual debt on purpose is a waste.

Regarding your argument of job losses, yes I understand, but people quit their jobs all the time. As they quit, spending could be reduced, to discourage hiring.

Shuttering the military industrial complex sounds nice to me. I don't believe that government and CEOs should be in the position to maintain employment by hiring people to make things for killing. In that specific situation, their manufacturing would be no more productive than just sitting around doing nothing. I suppose that they might as well make ammo for target practise, but that's not the point of this discussion.

For your job loss concern, the money would be better spent giving financial rewards to those who build and sell environmentally friendly products. I realize that you weren't speaking against such a suggestion, but my point is that reduced spending, plus shuttering manufacturing of a certain thing, and maintaining a surplus can be a good thing.

I'm not saying that we have to have a surplus, even if it shocks the economy. I'm saying that having a surplus is a good thing, and that we can't speak out against it, just because it's a surplus.

If we're really concerned about job losses, then the government could have the same effect by closing off the borders, and requiring more domestic manufacturing, and finding ways to direct our personal spending.

Moderators, please mod him up as informative. Here is the take away paragraph.

Early data suggests that a period of approximately two years of intermittent treatments may be required to attain the goal of long-term abstinence from narcotics and stimulants for many patients. The majority of patients treated with Ibogaine remain free from chemical dependence for a period of three to six months after a single dose. Approximately ten percent of patients treated with Ibogaine remain free of chemical dependence for two or more years from a single treatment and an equal percentage return to drug use within two weeks after treatment. Multiple administrations of Ibogaine over a period of time are generally more effective in extending periods of abstinence. It is noteworthy that twenty-nine of the thirty-five patients successfully treated with Ibogaine had numerous unsuccessful experiences with other treatment modalities.

I agree. I can't respect any opinions or suggestions that don't factor in the corruption of government. I'm amazed that people still think in terms of left and right, or liberal and conservative. What difference do their views make, if they are trying to screw us over?